The bad and the ugly.

[Jedi2016]

An entry-level, Core 2 Duo PC with an 8800GT (a card that's over 2 years old) graphics card would beat a PS3 in terms of overall graphics performance in games.

I can vouch for that, since I have a setup very similar to that. And yes, short of Crysis, I can jack every game to maximum and still run at a solid 60fps. That includes games I've played on PS3. When my PS3 died, I re-purchased some of the games on PC, and it's like night and day.

Game performance is, however, quite a bit different than just straight number-crunching, which is what Folding@Home does. But, since we ARE talking about games here, then number-crunching is irrelevant.

but the one thing i do really like that's game-related ... the community. the forza 3 community just generally sucks. it's a bunch of posers who seem to want to rip into each other for no reason or for the sake of looking better. i was appalled by how vicious people were in the forums. not a fun experience at all.

Makes me glad I don't play online that much. I hope we (GTP) can come up with a good method of doing organized online races, getting everybody together, etc. I have no idea how the lobbies and such will work out.

Although I would like to apologize in advance for the wrecks that I'm liable to cause.. Although I'm pretty laid-back on hot laps, I tend to get kinda aggressive when racing other cars. I wish I could reprogram my horn to say "sorry!"

 

[FlourescentBlak]

Also as far as nitpicking goes, I think everyone is extremely happy with how this game is turning out and by picking it apart we are just passing time until we can get our greedy hands on it.

We all want to be playing GT5 right now so discussing it is a close as we are going to get.

I wish I could reprogram my horn to say "sorry!"

or Awoooga!

 

[SlipZtrEm]

Although I would like to apologize in advance for the wrecks that I'm liable to cause.. Although I'm pretty laid-back on hot laps, I tend to get kinda aggressive when racing other cars. I wish I could reprogram my horn to say "sorry!"

Describe aggressive? If you check the Prologue board you'll find a sticky about online racing and proper etiquette (or at least, accepted around GTP). As long as you don't pull a Schumacher and cut people off, and don't constantly bump and grind, you really should be okay. I would get pretty rough with the utterly stupid AI in GT4 (usually just out of frustration at their new-found levels of ineptitude), but racing online in Prologue, if anything I'm not aggressive enough; I will give people a wide berth and/or move off line if I think it's needed.

Online adds so much fun for me on a psychological level; even if I race against the AI in some underpowered car, making the race incredibly difficult, it's not nearly as exciting as the pre-race (and during-race) feeling I get duking it out with other real people online. It gets you hooked.

 

[Dravonic]

No on both counts. The cell processor is NOT faster than high end PC processors and hasn't been since the top of the line core i7's were introduced. And the main memory is NOT faster than high end PC GPU memory. IIRC the PS3 has 256MB of DDR2 memory. Modern mid-level gaming cards come with 1GB of DDR5 memory standard. This may be off topic, but you are stating things as fact that are obviously wrong. So I am going to call you on it.

You got me wondering there. The new i7 extreme with 6 cores may indeed be faster. But you must be utterly mad to buy it. Mere mortals won't spend $1000 in a processor alone. But if you want to consider it then yep, I may be wrong about the cell being faster.

Regarding the memory, I'm talking about the main memory, not the video memory. PS3's main memory is XDR rambus with a 3.2GHz theoretical clock. That's 3 times faster than the ones used in high end PCs nowadays which have a theoretical clock of 1066MHz. PCs can get to a theoretical clock of 3.2GHz with the new triple channel architecture, but the memory itself is still 3 times slower, mind you.

 

[Sephy]

No on both counts. The cell processor is NOT faster than high end PC processors and hasn't been since the top of the line core i7's were introduced. And the main memory is NOT faster than high end PC GPU memory. IIRC the PS3 has 256MB of DDR2 memory. Modern mid-level gaming cards come with 1GB of DDR5 memory standard. This may be off topic, but you are stating things as fact that are obviously wrong. So I am going to call you on it.

I thought the PS3 had 512MB?

 

[Dravonic]

I thought the PS3 had 512MB?

256MB of XDR memory for the cell plus 256MB of GDDR3 memory for the RSX with 512MB memory in total, yes.

 

[Sum1s2pid]

or Awoooga!

Or this as a custom horn:

 

[Sephy]

256MB of XDR memory for the cell plus 256MB of GDDR3 memory for the RSX with 512MB memory in total, yes.

Ohhh ok gotcha. Thanks.

 

[nasanu]

Guys enough with the PS3 vs PC talk. GT5 is not coming to PC no matter what your PC specs are. Live with it. This is not the place to discuses why anyone would possibly want a gaming PC, nor why anyone would think it was better in any way. That is another thread, this is not it.

 

[RacerPaul]

What Kaz said was that it won't be 60fps all the time. That under extreme visual load, the framerate would drop. But 60fps is
still the "norm" for most of the game

i have several PS3 racing titles that are 30fps with nowhere near the graphical quality of GT5, and they still suffer slowdown when
theres a lot going on

so 60fps for most of the time in GT5 with its great graphics is doing ok imo 👍

 

[Devedander]

so 60fps for most of the time in GT5 with its great graphics is doing ok imo 👍

It's a double edged sword that... 60fps is impressive and quite desireable, but an intermittant drop in framerate I find almost as bad as just a locked lower framerate.

 

[the Interceptor]

It's a double edged sword that... 60fps is impressive and quite desireable, but an intermittant drop in framerate I find almost as bad as just a locked lower framerate.

But what is the alternative? Should they drop some visual features completely just to ensure the framerate stays at 60 fps at all times?

I would guess that a lot of people would rather choose to have the full details for sacrificing a few frames here and there. And from what Kaz said at TGS, the frame rate is not going to bomb completely anyway.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

But what is the alternative? Should they drop some visual features completely just to ensure the framerate stays at 60 fps at all times?

I would guess that a lot of people would rather choose to have the full details for sacrificing a few frames here and there. And from what Kaz said at TGS, the frame rate is not going to bomb completely anyway.

Well, the alternative could be to hold the framerate at a lower, steady rate. Instead of having fluctuations.

I sorta called it months ago that there'd be some slowdown, seeing as how it's present in Prologue. Not that I'm bothered by it; PD is throwing everything in the books at the PS3, a steady 60 fps just couldn't reasonably be expected. As long as the dips are as Kaz said (only rarely when all the features are being dealt with at once) and as long as it doesn't dip under 30fps, then I'm still a very happy camper.

 

[CoolColJ]

I wonder if there is enough gas left for surface wetting...

 

[Spagetti69]

Is that a medical condition Col? lol.

 

[shirakawaa]

I wonder if there is enough gas left for surface wetting...

[/QUOTE]

Probably yes if PD will tweak the already existing car reflection layer, but I might be wrong.
What is that image from by the way?

 

[Centura]

An entry-level, Core 2 Duo PC with an 8800GT (a card that's over 2 years old) graphics card would beat a PS3 in terms of overall graphics performance in games. A quad core (or even triple core) AMD or Core i5/i7 PC with an ATI 4850 (another outdated video card) graphics card would CRUSH a PS3 in terms of overall gaming performance. Throw in a better video card and the PS3 would get slaughtered.

You couldn't possibly be more off base with your assessment of the PS3's capabilities against modern PC's...

Raw processing power is not everything.

 

[CoolColJ]

Probably yes if PD will tweak the already existing car reflection layer, but I might be wrong.
What is that image from by the way?

PGR4 I believe

[YOUTUBEHD]3jDkmCi4G48[/YOUTUBEHD]

 

[XEPEGTP]

As long as the dips are as Kaz said (only rarely when all the features are being dealt with at once) and as long as it doesn't dip under 30fps, then I'm still a very happy camper.

That's the thing, its supposed to only happen under extreme load (16 cars visible, headlights, night, rain\snow effects), when do you have all cars visible in one frame? Very very rarely 2-3 mins into a race and the ffield has already spread for the most part, except NASCAR oval races, which IMO wont be run in the rain...

WRC mode is a time attack so you know its gona be 60 steady.

These people are wizards you have to believe in their witchery, cuz they are still pulling numbers no one can touch, steady 60fps (for the most part).

 

[drivatar]

it's good to see people able to criticize a game (although not released yet) and not be ripped apart. i made a thread like this on forza's forums and got my posting privileges revoked, well not revoked, but any time i made a post, it needed to be approved by a mod. WTF?

The official Forza forums are run by Turn10/Microsoft. Because of this you are a lot more restricted in what you can post than on GTPlanet that is completely independent of Sony .

 

[GTsimms]

I'm surprised Forza 3 is not a GFWL, but It's a good thing. If Sony could put out a computer OS to better Microsoft's (We need royalites, cash over quality of the product like the 1st year of Vista, crash updates, you buy the product and have very limited usage on the product key.) If Sony could hit the market with a user friendly OS then you would probably see GT on PC. One day Microsoft's domination will go down by a better company. If Commodore was still in the gaming market as they were in the late 80's with the Amiga 500. There was probably not a game out at that time, that you could not get for it. What hurts the PC, there is no specific GAMING OS. That's cuts the cpu draining. The only thing close is AMD Fusion

 

[Shinu]

If GT was made on PC there would be no end to it because you can always upgrade it, that means PD would just endlessly add stuff.

The only thing that makes them to release the game, is that they are almost at PS3 limits (shore you can always optimize and squeeze more).

And if you ask me (I'm a PC gamer for many years) Its more fun to play on ps3 then it is on the PC (even is the game is lower res or something). Put in the disc, relax on the couch, Play on your big-ass TV.

Maybe I'm just a nostalgic, but consoles have that strange feeling/spirit from those times when I was a kid, laying on the floor in front of my TV, playing Contra

 

[crab66]

was better in any way.

I think you meant better in almost every way.

 

[cpp214]

Raw processing power is not everything.

You're right, it's not. Actually, the cell processor is very good for what it is.
The processor is not really the problem with the PS3--it's the outdated video card in the PS3. If the video card could be updated with a newer one--with more memory and bandwidth--it would help tremendously.

But, no console is ever going to be able to outperform a high end PC in terms of graphics performance in games. That's not necessarily the fault of the console makers either. CPU and GPU technology improves on an almost semi-annual basis, and no console will ever be able to keep pace with those performance increases. Really, that's not why people buy consoles. They buy them for their plug-and-play-ability, among many other reasons.

Also, cost is a huge factor. If Sony or Microsoft started putting top of the line video cards and processors in their consoles, then the costs would have to rise proportionately.
If you added something like an ATI 5870 to a PS3 or Xbox, you're looking at a video card that retails for almost $400. That would cause the cost of consoles to go up dramatically.

 

[No46_TheDoctor]

The only reason the PS3 has a seperate graphics card in the first place is because lazy ass programmers were too, well, lazy to use the cell processor properly.

Some people in the know reckon it's actually better not to use the graphics card at all, because the cell processor is so much better at handeling graphics and everything else than the grapics card is, but it's not easy to do, so hardly anyone does.

 

[lalaurentide]

I'm surprised Forza 3 is not a GFWL, but It's a good thing. If Sony could put out a computer OS to better Microsoft's (We need royalites, cash over quality of the product like the 1st year of Vista, crash updates, you buy the product and have very limited usage on the product key.) If Sony could hit the market with a user friendly OS then you would probably see GT on PC. One day Microsoft's domination will go down by a better company. If Commodore was still in the gaming market as they were in the late 80's with the Amiga 500. There was probably not a game out at that time, that you could not get for it. What hurts the PC, there is no specific GAMING OS. That's cuts the cpu draining. The only thing close is AMD Fusion

OSes are open platforms, unlike consoles, and can be easily used for piracy, no chip or firmware modification needed. Either way, GT is an exclusive meant to sell PS3s, not third-party hardware from AMD or Intel, one PS3 has the potential to generate a lot of profit from royalties, ask any pop artist how they got rich, radio royalties and shows.

The only reason the PS3 has a seperate graphics card in the first place is because lazy ass programmers were too, well, lazy to use the cell processor properly.

Some people in the know reckon it's actually better not to use the graphics card at all, because the cell processor is so much better at handeling graphics and everything else than the grapics card is, but it's not easy to do, so hardly anyone does.

So you want Sony to remove a RISC processor optimised for 3D graphic calculations, and send a note along the SDK to studio stating that you scraped 20 years of software and electronic engineering, telling them they will have to program a graphic architecture and its languague from scratch, all this on another RISC-based processor non optimised for it.

 

[Centura]

The only reason the PS3 has a seperate graphics card in the first place is because lazy ass programmers were too, well, lazy to use the cell processor properly.

Some people in the know reckon it's actually better not to use the graphics card at all, because the cell processor is so much better at handeling graphics and everything else than the grapics card is, but it's not easy to do, so hardly anyone does.

I wouldn't call them lazy. Imagine if PS3 came with 2 Cell CPU's instead 1 Cell + 1 RSX like originally planned. I think it would just be too big of a learning curve, considering a lot of developers already had a hard time with just one Cell, and even Polyphony Digital admits they had a hard time with PS3.

 

[Vulcao]

Regarding reflections on the cars, it looks like they've improved that in more recent builds, but maybe it's just my eyes.

For those saying that this thread should be closed, it's even more simple to solve your problem: don't come here anymore.

Don't let this thread die.

 

[an1mal_69]

Jeeez..some of you guys are picky, personally I'm not too fussed about minor imperfections!

So long as the game 'feels' right.

There has to be priorities, and the physics of spray behind the car as opposed to excessive understeer, grass like ice, power oversteer, precessional AI that sticks to the racing line like it's a set of rails..the list of 'actual' bad things I really hope they have made good on as promised.

If it could make the game feel any better, they could cut replays altogether as far as I'm concerned. I play rFactor on a machine that has no real right to be running it, at a shocking resolution..just because steaming round the track in the Caterham 'feels' so right.

 

[SCUD77]

Pointless thread it should be closed as you can't complain about a game that hasn't been released because how do yuo know that build etc is final.

All the threads are pointless if we adopt your way of thinking ! you can't "big up" a game that is not yet released, how do you know that the footage so far is not much higher quality than the finished game will be with only 3 tracks and a handful of cars running off a full blue-ray disc ? you don't. take note of tv adverts for games, at the bottom of the screen it says "not actual game footage" bear that in mind when watching gt5 footage.
:My issues are:
unrealistic damage, from the replays i have watched you can tap a wall and see no damage, also cars spark when rubbing each other, headlights/glass do not smash, paint does not crack, basically the cars look like they have had an eye toy effect put on them.
Waay too much carried over from gt4 considering this is a "new" game.